My Friend P and I wonder about the relevance of religion in today's obviously confused world and I can't help but think that in some way it helps to perpetuate the confusion and misinterpretation of what should be good in this life.

So it was with great curiosity that I took note of the Vatican's recent revelation of its seven new deadly sins. It is unclear to me if these new sins replace the previous ones so we still have seven deadly sins - now just 'New and Improved'. Or if there are now 14 deadly sins?

Anyway let's take a look at the sins as defined by the Catholics new and old.

Old sins: Lust, Gluttony, Avarice, Sloth, Anger, Envy and Pride. New sins: Genetic modification, Human experimentations, Polluting the environment, Social injustice, Causing poverty, Financial gluttony and Taking drugs

Just imagine that the original sins have been around since the sixth century, now some smart person thinks that times have changed and they need to redefine sins.

I think the original sins were spot on - are still relevant and pretty much give a nice picture of the excesses in life that could result in you being a less than reasonable human being. And it did not need you to see Jesus to understand why they were sins. These new sins start off on the wrong footing just from how they are worded.

Back in the sixth century those Catholics had the KISS principle [Keep It Short Stupid] down to an art form - one word to the point. Then it seems there is repetition of the old sins in the new ones. For example Avarice is Financial gluttony, isn't it? And Genetic modification is wrapped up somewhere in Pride?

The biggest issue that I have with the new sins is that they are hardly definable. Social injustice? What the heck is that and who and how is that committed? Causing poverty - imagine the Catholic church as one of the most wealthy organisations in the world defining anything to do with wealth or the lack thereof as a sin?!

I could go on but I am sure you get my drift. These new sins pale in comparison to the simple effectiveness of the ones that have been in use for the past 1500 years. Nothing is wrong with simple - seriously. God is reported to have said: "Let there be light". I guess we believe if he were saying that now he would say "Let there be a change in the relative condition of the atmosphere through our eyes so that our corneas might discern brightness" or maybe he might just have said "Let there be Kern." Come on people keep it simple.

Email comments to: